Pant, Shubham

PURPOSE EGFR alterations occur in a subset of biliary tract cancers (BTCs) and are often linked to disease progression and poor prognosis, yet targeted approaches remain underexplored. ERRFI1 , encoding the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor MIG6, is mutated in various cancers, including BTC, representing a potential predictive biomarker. We investigated whether loss of ERRFI1 function may enhance sensitivity to EGFR-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), presenting a potential therapeutic opportunity. METHODS This is a retrospective multicenter study of patients with BTC harboring ERRFI1 alterations. Data were extracted from electronic health records following institutional approval. ERRFI1 alterations were classified based on the alteration type, variant allele frequencies were documented, and coalterations were analyzed. Treatment outcomes including response, time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), safety profiles, and tumor marker kinetics were noted. RESULTS Fourteen BTC patients with ERRFI1 mutations were identified in our database; the median age was 50 years, 64% were males; all cases were intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas. Common coalterations included IDH1 (36%), TP53 (29%), and ARID1A (29%). All patients received gemcitabine-cisplatin as first-line treatment, and 79% received immune checkpoint inhibitors. Eight patients (57%) received EGFR TKIs. Best responses to EGFR therapy included three partial responses (2 responses lasting >20 months), four stable diseases, and one progressive disease. The median TTP was 7 months (95% CI, 6 to 21 months). Treatment was well-tolerated: toxicities included rash (n = 2), transaminitis (n = 1), and diarrhea (n = 1). The median OS was 20 months (95% CI: 8-36 months); 50% remained alive at last follow-up. CONCLUSION ERRFI1 mutations represent actionable biomarkers in BTC, with EGFR-targeted therapy demonstrating meaningful clinical benefit in this heavily pretreated population. These findings support integration of ERRFI1 testing into routine molecular profiling of BTC and other EGFR-driven malignancies.

LBA5 Background: Available 2L therapies offer limited clinical benefit in mPDAC with reported mPFS of 3–4 mo and mOS of 6–7 mo. Aberrant RAS pathway activation is the key driver of PDAC, with oncogenic RAS mutations (mut) identified in >90% of cases, most commonly at codon G12. Daraxonrasib is an oral, RAS(ON) multi-selective, tri-complex inhibitor of the active, GTP-bound state of mutant and wild type RAS. Methods: RASolute 302 (NCT06625320) is a global, randomized, open-label, Ph 3 study in pts with 2L mPDAC and ECOG PS 0-1. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive daraxonrasib 300 mg PO QD or investigator’s choice of SOC cytotoxic chemo. Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS by BICR in the RAS G12 mutant (RAS G12) population. Key secondary endpoints included OS and PFS by BICR in the overall population, ORR by BICR in RAS G12 and overall populations. Results: 248 pts were randomized to daraxonrasib and 252 to chemo. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. At data cutoff (Feb 10, 2026; mFU: 8.5 mo), all primary and key secondary endpoints were met. Statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvements in OS and PFS were observed with daraxonrasib vs chemo in the RAS G12 and overall populations (Table). Gr ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 43.6% of pts receiving daraxonrasib vs 57.5% receiving chemo. The most common (≥10%) Gr ≥3 TRAEs were rash (13.7%) and stomatitis (12.0%) for daraxonrasib; neutrophil decrease (18.2%) and anemia (16.4%) for chemo. TRSAEs occurred in 10.8% of pts receiving daraxonrasib vs 18.7% receiving chemo. Discontinuation due to TRAEs occurred in 1.2% of pts for daraxonrasib vs 11.2% for chemo. Median/mean daraxonrasib dose intensity was 93.1%/84.7%. Conclusions: Daraxonrasib demonstrated unprecedented improvements in OS and PFS vs chemo in pts with 2L mPDAC with or without an identified tumor RAS mut. Daraxonrasib was generally well tolerated, with a manageable safety profile and with no new safety signals. Results support daraxonrasib as the new SOC for 2L mPDAC. Clinical trial information: NCT06625320 . RAS G12 Overall b Daraxonrasibn=228 Chemo n=231 Daraxonrasib n=248 Chemo n=252 OS Median; mos(95% CI) 13.2(10.0–NE) 6.6(5.4–8.2) 13.2(10.0–NE) 6.7(5.8–8.0) HR(95% CI)P-value 0.40(0.30-0.54)<0.0001 0.40(0.30-0.53)<0.0001 PFS a Median; mos(95% CI) 7.3(6.3–8.1) 3.5(2.9–3.8) 7.2(5.7–7.5) 3.6(2.9–4.2) HR(95% CI)P-value 0.45(0.34-0.59)<0.0001 0.49(0.38-0.64)<0.0001 ORR a %(95% CI) 33.2(27.0–39.9) 11.8(7.8–16.8) 31.6(25.8–38.0) 11.2(7.5–15.9) a By BICR. b RAS G12, G13 or Q61 mut or no RAS mut identified.

4013 Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is driven predominantly by oncogenic KRAS signaling, yet prior attempts to target the MAPK pathway have been limited by toxicity and emergence of resistance. Atebimetinib is a next-generation, deep cyclic inhibitor (DCI) of MEK designed to achieve pulsatile pathway inhibition with improved tolerability. We report a Phase 2a cohort evaluating atebimetinib in combination with modified gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (mGnP) in the first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic PDAC (NCT05585320). Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized Phase 2a study, patients with previously untreated advanced or metastatic PDAC were eligible for participation and were treated with orally administered atebimetinib daily in combination with mGnP (modification: every other week dosing). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per investigator assessment using RECIST 1.1 criteria in response-evaluable patients. The cohort was powered (~80%, one sided alpha 0.05) using an optimal Simon’s 2-stage design. Results: Fifty-five patients were enrolled and treated with 320 mg atebimetinib daily + mGnP. ECOG performance status was 0-1 (100%); median age was 68 years (range 42-85 years), 62% were ≥65 years, and 55% were male. No grade 5 treatment-related adverse events (AE) were observed. No AE related to atebimetinib were higher than grade 3. Grade 3 AE related to atebimetinib occurred in 29% of participants, with the most frequent being rash (5%), ALT increased (5%), and AST increased (5%). Among the 50 response-evaluable patients, best overall response (BOR) achieved were 21 PR, 21 SD, 7 PD, 1 NE. The ORR was 42%, and DCR was 84%. With a median follow-up of 10.4 months (data cutoff Jan 7, 2026), 6- and 9-month OS rates were 88% and 79%, respectively; median PFS was 8.3 months and median OS was not reached. Conclusions: Atebimetinib in combination with mGnP demonstrated favorable safety and promising efficacy compared to historic standard-of-care (SoC) GnP. 1 A phase 3 registrational trial is planned to start in mid-2026 for evaluation of atebimetinib + mGnP versus SoC GnP. 1. Von Hoff DD, Ervin T, Arena FP, et al. Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N Engl J Med . 2013;369(18):1691-1703. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1304369 (PMID: 24131140). Clinical trial information: NCT05585320 .

PURPOSE We tested the hypothesis that adding metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) to standard-of-care (SOC) systemic therapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with oligometastatic disease. METHODS EXTEND was a multicenter randomized phase II trial. Patients with 1-5 metastases were randomly assigned to MDT + SOC versus SOC in one of the six baskets (breast, pancreas, kidney, two prostate baskets, and an other basket) with basket-specific stratification and powering. PFS, the primary end point, was prespecified in the per-protocol set within each basket, across all baskets, and across all baskets excluding the prostate baskets. Exploratory end points included circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and immune profiling. RESULTS From 2018 through 2023, 521 patients were screened, 350 were randomly assigned, and 334 were analyzed per protocol (MDT + SOC, n = 166; SOC, n = 168). Radiotherapy was used as MDT for 98% of metastases (370/379). Overall, after a median follow-up of 53 months, PFS was improved with MDT + SOC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.72], P < .001). Similarly, PFS was improved when excluding the prostate baskets (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.40 to 0.89]). Within each basket, PFS superiority was identified for the pancreas, prostate, and other baskets, whereas the breast and kidney baskets were inconclusive. At enrollment, detectable ctDNA correlated with shorter PFS and survival; by contrast, ctDNA clearance 3 months postenrollment correlated with improved survival. MDT + SOC-induced systemic immune activation was most pronounced among baskets demonstrating PFS superiority. CONCLUSION The phase II EXTEND trial supports the addition of MDT to SOC for oligometastatic disease. Histology-specific efficacy signals were identified for phase III testing. Translational insights suggest the potential for optimizing the definition of oligometastasis using ctDNA and point to systemic immune responses as a possible mechanism of benefit from MDT.

Abstract Background Eligibility criteria for clinical trials are crucial for maintaining safety and study integrity. However, overly restrictive criteria can result in unrepresentative trial populations, leading to gaps in understanding real‐world treatment efficacy. Addressing potentially modifiable exclusions (PMEs) could enhance trial accessibility and participation without compromising safety. Methods The authors retrospectively analyzed screen‐failed patients with biliary tract cancer or pancreatic cancer between August 2019 and November 2024 at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Screen‐failed patients were those who provided informed consent but did not participate for any reason. Clinical data were obtained from screening logs and electronic health records. PMEs were identified and validated by two independent medical oncologists. Results Of 585 screen‐failed patients from 18 trials, 509 were analyzed (367 with pancreatic cancer and 142 with biliary tract cancer) after excluding 76 because of incomplete data. Leading causes of screen failure were declined participation (19%), comorbidities (12%), suboptimal organ function (11%), absence of a biomarker (10%), and insufficient biospecimens (7%). Reasons for declining included preference for standard care (23%), travel (22%), and competing trials (5%). The authors identified 69 patients (13.6%) who had PMEs (primarily borderline laboratory abnormalities), including liver function (23%), kidney function (20%), platelet count (12%), hemoglobin (7%), and white blood cell count (6%) abnormalities. Other PMEs included previous or concurrent malignancies (9%) and viral hepatitis (4%). PMEs were evenly distributed across trials. Conclusions Rigid eligibility criteria exclude stable patients who might benefit from investigational treatments. Easing criteria related to incidental or asymptomatic laboratory abnormalities could broaden trial accessibility and improve enrollment in populations that are more representative of real‐world use.

4136 Background: NAPOLI 3 (NCT04083235, N = 770), a global, randomized, open-label phase 3 study, demonstrated that NALIRIFOX significantly improved overall survival (OS, primary endpoint) and progression-free survival compared with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with untreated mPDAC. Here, we report an updated analysis of OS. Methods: Eligible patients with histopathologically/cytologically confirmed untreated mPDAC were randomized (1:1) to receive liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2 + oxaliplatin 60 mg/m2 + leucovorin 400 mg/m2 + 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 (NALIRIFOX, n = 383) on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (Gem+NabP, n = 387) on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Randomization was stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region and presence/absence of liver metastases. An updated OS analysis (data cutoff: 3 October 2023) was conducted. Kaplan–Meier methods were used to estimate median (95% confidence interval [CI]) OS and hazard ratios (HRs [95% CI]) were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazard models. The difference between groups was tested using a stratified log-rank test. Results: The median follow-up for OS was 28.7 months in the NALIRIFOX arm and 29.7 months in the Gem+NabP arm. At data cutoff, 11 patients were still receiving study treatment, all of whom were in the NALIRIFOX arm. With a total of 673 OS events (NALIRIFOX, n = 328; Gem+NabP, n = 345), median OS was 11.1 months (95% CI 10.0–12.1) in the NALIRIFOX arm compared with 9.2 months (8.3–10.6) in the Gem+NabP arm (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.72–0.98]; nominal p = 0.026). At 12 months and 18 months, survival rates were 45.6% (95% CI 40.5–50.5) and 26.6% (22.2–31.1), respectively, in the NALIRIFOX arm and 39.6% (34.7–44.5) and 20.0% (16.1–24.1), respectively, in the Gem+NabP arm. Conclusions: In this 29-month follow-up of NAPOLI 3, NALIRIFOX continued to demonstrate improved OS compared with Gem+NabP, with 11 patients still receiving the NALIRIFOX regimen. These data confirm NALIRIFOX as a new possible standard of care and reference regimen for the first-line treatment of patients with mPDAC. Clinical trial information: NCT04083235 .

687 Background: The NAPOLI 3 study (NCT04083235, N = 770) reported that NALIRIFOX improved overall survival (OS) vs Gem+NabP with manageable toxicity in 1L treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We explored changes in CA19-9 levels and their potential associations with efficacy as an important tumor marker in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Methods: In NAPOLI 3, CA19-9 was evaluated at baseline and every 8 weeks until patients discontinued study treatment. The detection limit of CA19-9 was 8000 kU/L in this study. The Cox proportional hazards regression and logistic regression were employed to investigate the relationship between CA19-9 decrease and OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR). Results: Patients with evaluable CA19-9 (levels =< 8000) at baseline and additional measurements at weeks 8 and 16 were included in the analysis (NALIRIFOX, n = 179; Gem+NabP, n = 194). The median baseline CA19-9 level was 378.0 and 409.7 kU/L for the NALIRIFOX and Gem+NabP arms, respectively. Overall, patients with (vs without) any CA 19-9 decrease by week 16 had a higher ORR (59.9% vs 35.2%; p = 0.002), a longer median PFS (9.2 vs 6.2 months; p < 0.001) and a longer median OS (14.2 vs 8.7 months; p = 0.005), respectively in a pooled analysis of the treatments. In the NALIRIFOX arm, patients with any CA19-9 decrease by week 16 had a higher confirmed ORR of 65.1% compared with those without at 42.4% ( p < 0.001), a median PFS of 9.5 vs 7.1 months ( p < 0.001) and a median OS of 15.4 versus 8.4 months ( p = 0.004), respectively. In the Gem+NabP arm, patients with CA19-9 decrease by week 16 had a higher ORR of 55.5% compared with those without at 23.8% ( p = 0.012), a median PFS of 7.6 versus 5.8 months ( p < 0.001) and a median OS of 13.7 versus 11.9 months ( p = 0.235), respectively. Conclusions: CA19-9 decrease by week 16 has the potential to be an early prognostic factor for OS, PFS and ORR. The results should be interpreted with caution as a considerable percentage of patients were excluded due to non-evaluable CA19-9 that exceeded the lab detection limit of 8000 kU/L. Clinical trial information: NCT04083235 .

4006 Background: Liposomal irinotecan + 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) is approved in the USA and Europe for mPDAC following progression with gemcitabine-based therapy. A phase 1/2 study (NCT02551991) demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity in patients with mPDAC who received first-line liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2 + 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 + LV 400 mg/m2 + oxaliplatin 60 mg/m2 (NALIRIFOX). Here, we present results from NAPOLI 3 (NCT04083235), a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study investigating the efficacy and safety of NALIRIFOX compared with nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 + gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (Gem+NabP) as first-line therapy in patients with mPDAC. Methods: Eligible patients with histopathologically/cytologically confirmed untreated mPDAC were randomized (1:1; stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status, geographic region and presence/absence of liver metastases) to receive NALIRIFOX on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or Gem+NabP on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. OS was evaluated when at least 543 events were observed using a stratified log-rank test with an overall one-sided significance level of 0.025. Results: Overall, 770 patients (NALIRIFOX, n = 383; Gem+NabP, n = 387) were included. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. At a median follow-up of 16.1 months, 544 events had occurred. Median OS was 11.1 months in the NALIRIFOX group versus 9.2 months in the Gem+NabP group; median PFS was 7.4 months versus 5.6 months. Median (95% CI) duration of response was 7.3 (5.8–7.6) and 5.0 (3.8–5.6) months in patients who received NALIRIFOX and Gem+NabP, respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in at least 10% of patients receiving NALIRIFOX versus Gem+NabP included diarrhea (20.3% vs 4.5%), nausea (11.9% vs 2.6%), hypokalemia (15.1% vs 4.0%), anemia (10.5% vs 17.4%) and neutropenia (14.1% vs 24.5%). Conclusions: First-line NALIRIFOX demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in OS and PFS compared with Gem+NabP in patients with mPDAC. The NALIRIFOX safety profile was consistent with the profiles of the regimen components and generally manageable. Clinical trial information: NCT04083235 . [Table: see text]